3 reasons for the fallacy of school rules and worship, and the relationship between Hong Kong people's anti-democratic freedom

Article link: 3 reasons for the fallacy of school rules worship, and the relationship between Hong Kong people's anti-democratic freedom

Although the Flowing Water Movement in 2019 enlightened many ignorant citizens to understand democracy, and the 721 police gang colluded with the public to violently turn some light blue into light yellow, has the level of democracy of Hong Kong people improved? From Hong Kong people's fascination with school rules, Qi dared not be optimistic.

Qi dared to post a discussion thread in the Parent-Child Kingdom at Lansi Base Camp, and saw those highly educated and high-income netizens ( press: Qi dared to guess, it is possible that the members of the middle class and the teaching association are like members of the parent-child kingdom, agreeing that the school rules restrict students , because many members of the pan-democratic middle class or teachers' association may only regard democracy as a vote, rather than in every aspect of life. Also, Qi dared to search the Internet and could not find any Hong Kong teacher as advanced as a Taiwanese teacher. Publicly criticize the school rules of Hong Kong schools for violating human rights. And Qi Gan also failed to find from the statement of the Education Association that the Education Association called on members to put pressure on the school to implement the human rights school. On the contrary, Qi Gan criticized the education association for not paying attention to students' human rights. The Internet found that, of course, it needs social science confirmation to study the attitude of Hong Kong teachers towards the human rights campus. This is just a small observation by Qi Gan. ) The obsession and poisoning of the dictatorship of the school rules can not help but feel sick - I feel deeply that Bai The servile culture that Mr. Yang and Mr. Lu Xun denounced, that power is justice, is still very popular in New Hong Kong (Shenzhen South), which has been influenced by Western culture for more than a hundred years. Superstition about school rules is an example. Even if God ordered Hong Kong to have universal suffrage tomorrow, Hong Kong's democracy would still be a rubbish democracy.

After the incident, the victim, as a parent, stated that the school rules were very strict, and he had to wear a neat school uniform before going back to school. His son's leather shoes were wet in the rain. As a result, there was a rubbish tutor who played with the law when he saw it, like a shark sniffing blood, and immediately gave his son the choice of the alliance under the city, one is to record a small fault according to the school rules (in fact, the fault is not commensurate with the punishment), one is to go back to school barefoot for a month. . Afterwards, the servile chief supported the dean, and said that the female dean was very concerned about her son's psychological condition afterwards.

Qi dared to think that after a large-scale pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, netizens should feel righteous indignation at such an obvious injustice, using evil laws to play with an innocent student, and punishing small mistakes indefinitely and severely, rather than handling them flexibly. But perhaps the servility of Hong Kong people is unfathomable. There are actually many garbage netizens, garbage middle-class, garbage parents who praised this discipline and said that the law is the law, and you must obey the rules when you come out of society. It's already fortunate... All kinds of righteousness are awe-inspiring, in a word, the children who know how to be flexible kneel down and become slaves, and long live the school rules.

The rubbish remarks made by netizens in the parent-child kingdom above prove that their level is far inferior to that of Westerners, and that Xi Jinping's dream of Chinese rejuvenation can come to an end. To discuss the simple ABC of political science, these useless school rules are not in the right name and the words are out of line.

First, according to the philosopher Berlin, if a government wants to make laws to restrict a person's freedom or behavior, the reason is because the person's behavior violates the freedom and rights of other people and harms others. Otherwise, the government's arbitrary enactment of laws that restrict the freedom of the people can be described as tyranny. I would like to ask if a student chooses to wear slippers to go back to school because his leather shoes are wet, does he infringe on the human rights and freedoms of others? Is it murder, arson, adultery and looting? If not, what are these school rules for? Is it purely to satisfy the desire to discipline and abuse students with school rules?

If you say that it is because you need to train students to adapt to social clothing or group life, it is a slippery slope fallacy. First of all, the school is not the army. Because the army has to fight on the battlefield, it needs a high degree of discipline and unified cooperation, so the rules must be strict. However, students do not have to go to the battlefield, and school regulations limit the length of students' hair and clothing. As for training students to adapt to social clothing, it is even more ridiculous. Social trends will change as soon as they change, and school rules cannot keep up with the changes at all. Isn't this just taking off your pants and farting? In addition, this society is a pluralistic society, and everyone has the right to choose their own clothes. Why does the school have the privilege to use school rules to point out the students' clothes, and if they violate the rubbish instruction above, they will take the opportunity to humiliate the students in every possible way?

As an aside, Hong Kong is a city in the rainy season. It is normal for one or two pairs of shoes to get wet and need to be replaced. Why do adults or teachers have the privilege to replace clean shoes at will to go to school and go to work? Students choose other shoes for school for special reasons. Accused of violating school rules and insulted by slave netizens? Does this not reflect the rigidity of the school's governance, which needs to be reviewed; instead, it blames the students? Is this different from indiscriminately condemning female victims when there is a rape case in an Islamic country?

In addition, the law must have moral authority. According to the social contract theory, the people need to pass the Constitutional Assembly or the public opinion authority to legislate to be convincing. However, the school rules of all schools in Hong Kong are closed-door and black-box operations. Go dictatorial procedures without discussion and consent of the students. Is there any moral authority for such school rules? It is precisely because these school rules have no democratic basis, some student organizations in Japan and Taiwan have conducted judicial review on this issue. As a result, a large number of schools have lost their lawsuits. On the contrary, when Hong Kong people see the school rules, no matter whether the content is rice or feces, they all accept it willingly.

The most rubbish thing is the instruction. The so-called choice is to humiliate the students. It is like choosing between poop-flavored curry and curry-flavored poop. If a student chooses to go barefoot for a month, will your teacher really allow it? They are just some despicable villains who use up their own power, they can be called teaching animals.

However, what disappointed Qi Gan the most was the Education Association. The Education Association has advocated democracy and freedom for half a century, but their members use dictatorial school rules to brainwash students into unreasonable law slaves (some become blue silk), without saying a word and turning a blind eye. There are so many people who oppose democracy and freedom in Hong Kong, I am afraid it has something to do with the brainwashing of the school rules in middle schools.